2019
DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igz036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

Abstract: Background and Objectives Researchers typically use Cohen’s guidelines of Pearson’s r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen’s d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. This study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

4
228
0
7

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 368 publications
(239 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
4
228
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…The moderate effect size of maternal separation on defensive-exploratory behavior in rats (Hedges g = −0.33 to −0.48) is consistent with effect sizes reported for rates of anxiety disorder in humans exposed to childhood maltreatment (i.e., odds ratio of 2-3 3,4,12-14 is roughly equivalent to effect sizes of 0.38-−0.6 48 ). In addition, assuming an effect size of −0.4 in rats, a sample size of roughly 100 rats per group, is needed to ensure a power of 0.8 and α = 0.05 49 . This sample size is roughly 5-10 fold larger than the sample sizes commonly used in rodent work, suggesting that under-powered studies may contribute to the significant variance associated with behavioral outcomes in both the EPM (I 2 = 76%, Q = 274, df = 66, p < 0.001) and the OFT (I 2 = 66%, Q = 136, df = 66, p < 0.001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The moderate effect size of maternal separation on defensive-exploratory behavior in rats (Hedges g = −0.33 to −0.48) is consistent with effect sizes reported for rates of anxiety disorder in humans exposed to childhood maltreatment (i.e., odds ratio of 2-3 3,4,12-14 is roughly equivalent to effect sizes of 0.38-−0.6 48 ). In addition, assuming an effect size of −0.4 in rats, a sample size of roughly 100 rats per group, is needed to ensure a power of 0.8 and α = 0.05 49 . This sample size is roughly 5-10 fold larger than the sample sizes commonly used in rodent work, suggesting that under-powered studies may contribute to the significant variance associated with behavioral outcomes in both the EPM (I 2 = 76%, Q = 274, df = 66, p < 0.001) and the OFT (I 2 = 66%, Q = 136, df = 66, p < 0.001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several limitations to this review. First, at the study level, some of the studies referred to have relatively small sample sizes and are likely to be underpowered 61 . It would be useful to have more large scale studies to examine the effects of cognitive training.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fourth, in the present study, the effect sizes for the relationships between individual factors and health literacy were all small to medium, even though they were statistically significant. According to the guideline for effect size in gerontology 56 (such as the study that recommended using Pearson's r = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology), in the present study, the relationship between functional capacity and health literacy was considered to be a medium effect (β = −0.22), the relationship between openness and health literacy was considered to be a small to medium effect (β = 0.17), and the relationship between neuroticism and health literacy was considered to be small (β = −0.08). As for the reasons why the effect sizes were not large, as the present study conducted multivariate regression analysis adjusted for confounders, the significant relationships given in the statistical models were independent from the effects of other variables, and thus, the standardised regression coefficients (β) became smaller compared to the univariate correlation coefficients (r) (see also APPENDIX S1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%